Dinesh Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5766 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5766 Raj
Judgement Date : 10 August, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dinesh Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. ... on 10 August, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2023:RJ-JD:25330]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6998/2018

Dinesh Singh Son Of Shri Girraj Sharan Singh, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Jatiyon Ki Gali, Khanda Falsa, Tehsil And District Jodhpur Raj..

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur Raj..

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Ajmer Raj.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Balana for Mr. Himmat Jagga For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nishant Bapna for Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

10/08/2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue

involved in the present matter has already been set at rest by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment passed in the

case of Naresh Kumar Rajpurohit Vs. State & Anr.; S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.262/2018, decided on 17.07.2018 which has

been affirmed by the Division Bench in the case of State Vs.

Neetu Arora & Anr.; D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No.1760/2018, decided on 20.05.2019.

2. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the present petition

be allowed in terms of the judgment passed in the case of Naresh

Kumar Rajpurohit (supra).

[2023:RJ-JD:25330] (2 of 3) [CW-6998/2018]

3. Mr. Bapna, learned counsel for the respondents is not in a

position to dispute the aforesaid position of the facts of law.

4. The present writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment

passed in the case of Naresh Kumar Rajpurohit (supra) in which

the Court has held thus:

"7.1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing precedent law as well as record, this Court is of the opinion that the recruitment process in question is being governed by the Rules of 1999 and Rule 4(1) clearly envisages a reservation of 7% in the State services for the posts to be filled by direct recruitment for the non-gazetted employees of the Government, Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads. This Court could have definitely considered the mistake of the respondents as per the submissions if it was not being repeated year after year in a prestigious examination as that of Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services.

7.2. In the judgment of Shyam Pratap Singh Charan (supra), earlier recruitment process was on the same issue and inspite of the issue going against the respondents, they have slept over their duty and have proceeded ahead while ignoring the mandatory provision of Rule 4(1). The apathy and callousness which is writ large in the recruitment by the State is deplorable as not only it has caused serious anamolies but has also deviated the Commission from going ahead with the selection process as per Rule 4(1). 7.3. This Court further finds that the act of the State Government has caused serious anxiety and deprivation to the non- gazetted employees who have failed to get their due benefits which was the legislative intention of Rule 4(1). Reservation is a legislative scheme which has to be implemented by the State of Rajasthan in the full earnest and their argument is not acceptable that various departments have given wrong information which led to final wrong bifurcation by the Department of Personnel on 8.9.2016 and 22.6.2017. This Court has also perused the precedent law and finds that the reservation as per the

[2023:RJ-JD:25330] (3 of 3) [CW-6998/2018]

scheme of Legislature has to be religiously applied by giving share of preference to the persons who as per the Legislature are entitled for such preference. Since the appointments are yet to be made and selection process is yet to attain finality, therefore, there is no delay in the approach of the petitioners to this Court hence, the precedent law in the matter of Emarata Ram Pooniya (supra) is not applicable in present facts and circumstances.

8. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to give a fresh bifurcation while implementing Rule 4(1) of the rules of 1999 and give appointment to the petitioners who are non-gazetted employees, if they are otherwise eligible and meritorious. The category and implementation of Rule 4 shall be as per the choice already furnished by the petitioners and shall be in accordance with the merit of selection process in question.

9. Since it is their second consecutive failure to abide by the Rule 4(1) and in spite of judgment in the matter of Shyam Pratap Singh Charan (supra), the D.O.P. shall pay a cost of Rs.25 lakhs which shall be deposited in the respondent Commission for sprucing up its process of recruitment."